SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
(Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant in this dispute is A. L. McCullough, Leading Signalman with headquarters at Roseville, Calif. Mr. McCullough seeks the difference between his rate of pay and the rate of pay of Leading Signal Maintainer, Car Retarder Systems, because on the dates set out herein he was required to perform the duties of the Leading Signal Maintainer, at Jennings Yard, who was on his annual vacation.
The claim is based on provisions of Rules 27 and 70, of the current Agreement which are quoted below for ready reference:
(Carrier's Exhibit C), Petitioner's Local Chairman gave notice that the claim would be appealed.
By letter dated February 7, 1968 (Carrier's Exhibit D), Petitioner's General Chairman appealed the claim to Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel, and by letter dated March 28, 1969 (Carrier's Exhibit E), the latter denied the claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is A. L. McCullough, Leading Signalman with headquarters at Roseville, California. Petitioner contends that Carrier should compensate Claimant the difference between his rate of pay and the higher rate of pay of Leading Signal Maintainer because on the dates set out in the claim, Claimant was required to perform the duties of the Leading Signal Maintainer at Jennings Yard, the latter being on vacation on the dates in question.
Carrier denies that the Claimant performed the duties of Leading Signal Maintainer while the latter was on vacation answering that when he was on vacation, under the provisions of the Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941 as amended, Carrier exercised its prerogative by choosing not to fill such position. Carrier further states that it never required Claimant to perform the duties of Leading Signal Maintainer, and that during the period in question, Claimant performed the work of his regular assigned position of Leading Signalman, Signal Gang No. 1, and that he was compensated therefore at the applicable rate.
Petitioner bases its claim on Carrier's alleged violation of Rule 27, and 70 of the current Agreement, which read, in pertinent part:
In order for us to sustain the claim, Petitioner has the burden of proving by probative evidence that Claimant was required to perform the work of the higher rated position (Leading Signal Maintainer). In other Nvords, he must have filled this position while the incumbent was on vacation.
We are of the opinion that Claimant has failed to prove that he was filling the position of Leading Signal Maintainer. The record is devoid of any evidence from which we could conclude that Carrier required Claimant to fill the higher rated position. Claimant was performing work which was part of the duties of his position, which work he had performed previously.
Claimant has failed to sustain its burden of proof, and the claim must be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: